TexasCHLforum.com

UPDATE 1: Faced with nervousness within their ranks, Democratic leaders have decided to drop the "Deem & Pass" strategy. That satisfies one Republican demand, which was that House should have a standalone vote on the Senate national health care bill.

But Democrats are apparently determined to vote for their package of amendments to the Senate bill before they vote for the bill itself. (They remain terrified of voting for the deal-laden Senate measure without having already voted to "fix" it.) That plan still runs afoul of the second Republican objection, which is that the House cannot vote to amend a law that isn't a law. The Senate national health care bill can only become law after it is passed by the House and signed by the president, and without the president's signature, it isn't law. Republicans argue that the House cannot amend a law that isn't yet law.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... z0iqRKg7Nl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sjfcontrol wrote:It really doesn't matter if they vote for the bill or not. Where in the Constitution do they get the power to MANDATE that citizens (and non-citizens?) buy any product? What's next? Mandating that everybody buy a new GM (Government Motors) Automobile? Why Not?

03Lightningrocks wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:It really doesn't matter if they vote for the bill or not. Where in the Constitution do they get the power to MANDATE that citizens (and non-citizens?) buy any product? What's next? Mandating that everybody buy a new GM (Government Motors) Automobile? Why Not?

By the way, it is not looking good at this point for Americans. The socialist party is on a huge roll and they don't seem to care that they are jumping off a cliff together. Nancy knows she is toast and has convinced the others to join her.

sjfcontrol wrote:It really doesn't matter if they vote for the bill or not. Where in the Constitution do they get the power to MANDATE that citizens (and non-citizens?) buy any product? What's next? Mandating that everybody buy a new GM (Government Motors) Automobile? Why Not?

Breaking: “Fix” Bill May Not Advance In Senate

Senate Democrats Refuse Bi-partisan Meeting With Parliamentarian Until After House Votes

WASHINGTON DC – Senate Democrats have balked at a bi-partisan meeting with the Senate Parliamentarian to discuss a rule violation that could doom the entire House reconciliation proposal.

DON STEWART, McCONNELL SPOKESMAN: “Republicans have been trying to set up a meeting with Senate Democrats since yesterday to discuss this fatal point of order but have been met with nothing but silence. We suspect Democrats are slow walking us so as to have the House vote first. Since Senate Democrats refuse to meet with us and the Parliamentarian, we’ve informed our colleagues in the House that we believe the bill they’re now considering violates the clear language of Section 310g of the Congressional Budget Act, and the entire reconciliation bill is subject to a point of order and rejection in the Senate should it pass the House.”

BACKGROUND

DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP RELEASE: “The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the health care legislation shows an increase in Social Security revenues… CBO projects that the resulting increase in wages will generate $29 billion in additional FICA contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund.” (“Health Care Reform Update,” Office of Rep. Steny Hoyer, 3/21/10)

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT: “LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution reported pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget agreed to under section 301 or 304, or a joint resolution pursuant to section 258C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that contains recommendations with respect to the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act.” (Congressional Budget Act Of 1974, Sec. 310g, P. 31)

Kythas wrote:That's been my argument all along, but the government does many, many things that the Constitution doesn't enumerate. Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, etc.

jmra wrote:Anybody got $950 billion laying around? Looks like we're going to need it.